Rural and Agrarian Transformation in

India
Programmes of rural development, Community
Development Programme, cooperatives, poverty
alleviation schemes.
MGNREGA and Rural Development
Objectives and Mechanism
The Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Act (2005) guarantees 100 days of
wage employment to every rural household. It aims at reducing rural poverty, promoting social
inclusion, and empowering marginalized communities.
Sociological Implications
• Class Dynamics: MGNREGA offers bargaining power to landless laborers by creating an
alternative to exploitative labor arrangements.
• Gender Empowerment: A large proportion of MGNREGA workers are women, many of
whom earn independently for the first time.
• Caste Inclusion: By reducing dependency on dominant caste landlords, MGNREGA
creates space for lower caste assertion.
Case study: MGNREGA in Rajasthan
tribal women organized under MGNREGA constructed water harvesting structures and received
timely payments, illustrating both ecological and social benefits.
Challenges in Implementing Rural Development Programmes
• Administrative Bottlenecks: Delays in fund release, poor coordination, and inadequate
staff reduce the impact of programs.
• Leakages and Corruption: Ghost beneficiaries, fake job cards, and inflated work records
are common issues.
• Low Participation: Many programs fail to involve Gram Sabhas or incorporate community
feedback.
• Social Exclusion: Programs often bypass women, Dalits, and Adivasis, or fail to consider
their specific needs.
Example: In Bihar, studies found that awareness of MGNREGA rights was lowest among Dalit
households, leading to poor participation.

2nd Floor, 45 Pusa Road, Opp. Metro Pillar 128, Karol Bagh, New Delhi-110005
Ph: 08062961200, 08062961201 | Email: [email protected]
MSP and Rural Development
The Minimum Support Price (MSP) is a government-announced price at which it procures crops
from farmers. It is designed to protect farmers against price volatility.
• Income Security: MSP stabilizes farmer incomes, particularly in regions with procurement
mechanisms.
• Regional Imbalance: Benefits are concentrated in states like Punjab and Haryana, while
farmers in Odisha or Jharkhand rarely benefit.
• Small Farmer Exclusion: Farmers with minimal marketable surplus or lack of access to
procurement centers cannot benefit.

Understanding the Mode of Production Debate in

Indian Agriculture
Introduction: Why Agrarian Mode of Production Matters
The question of how Indian agriculture is organized—whether along feudal or capitalist lines—
sparked a major intellectual debate among Marxist scholars in the 1960s and 70s. This wasn’t just
a theoretical exercise; it was deeply political. Understanding the nature of rural class relations was
essential to determining the direction of Left politics in India—whether the struggle should focus
on overthrowing feudal landlords or resisting capitalist exploitation.
This debate was informed not only by Indian field studies but also by classical Marxist discussions
on the transition from feudalism to capitalism in Europe. It played out in the background of radical
political events like the Naxalbari uprising and peasant revolts in South India, giving it urgency and
practical relevance.
The concept of modes of production originates from Marxist theory and refers to the specific
ways in which production is organized in a society, including relations between producers, owners,
and the means of production. In agrarian societies, this typically involves the relationship between
landowners and laborers, and the organization of labor (family-based, wage labor, bonded labor,
etc.).
In India, rural production relations do not fit neatly into a single mold of feudalism or capitalism.
Instead, they reflect coexistence, overlap, and transition—a point many Indian scholars have
emphasized in their critiques of Eurocentric Marxist models.
The Semi-Feudal Argument: Bondage Behind the Plough
Several scholars argued that Indian agriculture remained trapped in a semi-feudal structure. This
view, associated with Amit Bhaduri, Pradhan Prasad, and Nirmal Chandra, emphasized the role of
debt, sharecropping, and landlord dominance in shaping village life. In his influential model based
on villages in Bengal, Bhaduri described how small tenant farmers borrowed money from landlords
(jotedars) for both farming and survival. These loans came with high interest rates, and when
combined with rent, they created a cycle of permanent indebtedness.
In this setup, landlords had little incentive to invest in better technology. Improved productivity
might allow tenants to break free from the trap. Therefore, landlords preferred stagnation over

2nd Floor, 45 Pusa Road, Opp. Metro Pillar 128, Karol Bagh, New Delhi-110005
Ph: 08062961200, 08062961201 | Email: [email protected]
progress—a situation that mirrored what Marx described as relations of production becoming
fetters on the development of productive forces.
Amit Bhaduri provided a critical model of what he called "semi-feudalism", based on empirical
studies. He showed how:
• Small farmers often borrow from landlords who are also moneylenders and input
suppliers.
• This credit-dependence traps them in a cycle where they are forced to sell produce cheaply
to the same landlords.
• In this system, even if labor is not "bonded" in the traditional sense, it remains unfree and
dependent.
Bhaduri's model also critiqued the idea that market involvement implies capitalist freedom.
Instead, he introduced the idea of "forced commercialisation"—where farmers are pushed into
markets not to profit, but to repay debt, reproducing poverty.
He also pointed out the "inverse relationship" between landholding size and productivity—small
farmers tend to cultivate more intensively, but without institutional support, they are economically
squeezed out.
Supporters of the semi-feudal thesis also highlighted the colonial roots of India’s agrarian
problems. British policies created a class of landlords and moneylenders who extracted rents and
interest without contributing to productivity. Nirmal Chandra argued that the resulting labor
surplus and lack of industrial alternatives kept the rural poor trapped in underemployment and
self-exploitation.
Ranjit Sau further explained that small peasants continued to farm tiny plots despite meager returns
simply because they had no other option. This, he said, made it very difficult for capitalist farmers
to take over rural production.
A Shift in Thinking
One of the earliest contributors to the debate, Ashok Rudra, initially supported the semi-feudal
view based on his Punjab village studies. But by the mid-1970s, he changed his position. After
fresh fieldwork in West Bengal, Rudra argued that capitalist relations were taking hold—evident
in the use of wage labor, market-oriented production, and reinvestment of surplus.
He also questioned the idea of a massive rural labor surplus, noting that many farmers struggled
to find workers during peak seasons. For Rudra, this indicated that the older categories of
feudalism and semi-feudalism were no longer adequate to describe rural India.
Ashok Rudra challenged simplistic categorizations of agrarian structures as either feudal or
capitalist. In his field studies (notably in West Bengal), he observed that multiple modes of
production coexisted—some landlords employed permanent labor, others used casual labor, and
many relied on family labor.
He emphasized that Indian agriculture reflected:
• Feudal remnants (landlordism, attached labor),
• Capitalist traits (use of technology, market dependence),

2nd Floor, 45 Pusa Road, Opp. Metro Pillar 128, Karol Bagh, New Delhi-110005
Ph: 08062961200, 08062961201 | Email: [email protected]
 • And peasant subsistence economy (smallholders working for survival).
Rudra argued against seeing Indian agriculture as already capitalist, instead proposing that Indian
villages operate under a hybrid or transitional mode, resisting clean theoretical categorization.
Utsa Patnaik built on and deepened the analysis of agrarian change through a more structured
Marxist lens. She analyzed how agrarian transition in India was shaped by:
• Colonial land revenue systems,
• Post-independence green revolution policies,
• Market penetration, and
• Emerging class differentiation within the peasantry.
Patnaik categorized the rural population into landlords, rich peasants, middle peasants, poor
peasants, and landless laborers, showing how surplus extraction worked differently across these
classes.
She also criticized state policies that encouraged capitalist farming among rich peasants while
neglecting land reforms, thus strengthening semi-feudal structures.
According to her, India does not represent a pure capitalist mode because labor exploitation and
land relations are still governed by caste and social inequality.
Beyond Appearances: Banaji on Subsumption of Labor
A major theoretical contribution came from Jairus Banaji, who urged scholars to look beyond
surface appearances. He used Marx’s concepts of ‘formal’ and ‘real’ subsumption of labor to
explain the complexity of Indian agriculture. According to Banaji, even when labor appeared
independent—like small peasants cultivating their own land—they could still be part of a capitalist
system.
Formal subsumption refers to older labor forms being drawn into capitalist markets without
changing how production is organized. Real subsumption happens when capital reshapes the
production process itself. Banaji argued that both were present in India. Even tenancy,
indebtedness, and small-scale farming could be forms of capitalist exploitation, masked by
traditional labels.
Evidence of Capitalism on the Ground
Other scholars, including Hamza Alavi, Kathleen Gough, and Gail Omvedt, also rejected the idea
that Indian agriculture was feudal. Gough's study of Thanjavur in Tamil Nadu showed how large
farms adopted tractors, hybrid seeds, and chemical inputs—hallmarks of capitalist farming.
Omvedt noted that most rural workers were wage earners, agriculture had become market-
oriented, and inputs were sourced from industry. For her, this was clear evidence that capitalism
was now the dominant mode of production in rural India.
Even caste-based social practices, like ritualized labor or traditional gifts, persisted alongside
capitalist relations. This showed that cultural elements could survive even after the economic base
had changed.
Caste, Class, and Rural Contradictions

2nd Floor, 45 Pusa Road, Opp. Metro Pillar 128, Karol Bagh, New Delhi-110005
Ph: 08062961200, 08062961201 | Email: [email protected]
The debate also intersected with discussions on caste. Scholars like Gail Omvedt, Jan Breman, and
others emphasized that caste and class were deeply intertwined in Indian villages. Dominant caste
groups often controlled land and capital, while Dalits and Adivasis were concentrated in landless
labor. Exploitation was therefore not just economic but also social and cultural.
The structure of rural society was complex: some landowners were both exploitative and
progressive, investing in agriculture while maintaining control through caste and custom. The line
between capitalist and feudal was not always clear.
Jan Breman added to this discourse by focusing on migrant rural labor, which he called "footloose
labor". He argued that the agrarian structure in India was producing surplus laborers who are
expelled from land but not absorbed in secure urban employment.
This represents a form of agrarian capitalism without inclusion—where large landholders
mechanize or shift to cash crops, while marginal farmers are pushed into circular migration,
working in urban informal sectors without stability.
In Breman’s view, this produces a dual burden: the rural economy cannot sustain them, and the
urban economy exploits them without recognition.
Political Implications: A Misguided Focus on Feudalism?
The final and perhaps most important outcome of this debate was its political conclusion. Many
Left parties had built their rural strategy on the idea that feudalism was the main obstacle to
progress. They allied with rich peasants to fight landlords, under the slogan of "land to the tiller."
But scholars like Rudra and Chakravarty warned that this approach was increasingly outdated. As
capitalism spread in agriculture, the real divide was between rural employers (landowners and rich
peasants) and landless laborers or poor peasants. By continuing to focus on a "phantom of
feudalism," they argued, the Left was missing the chance to organize those most exploited under
capitalism.
Moving Beyond Old Binaries
By the late 1980s, there was growing agreement that capitalist relations had taken root in Indian
agriculture, though with regional and historical variations. Tenancy, sharecropping, and bonded
labor might still exist—but they were often embedded within capitalist systems of profit and
accumulation.
The lesson of the debate was not just theoretical. It reminded political actors that understanding
rural India required both historical awareness and empirical sensitivity. The agrarian question, in
India as elsewhere, could not be answered with one-size-fits-all labels.
Conclusion: A Spectrum of Agrarian Capitalism
Together, these thinkers help us understand that India's agrarian modes of production lie on a
spectrum:
• They are neither feudal nor fully capitalist.
• They are marked by class differentiation, semi-feudal coercion, and market dependency.
• They are shaped by caste, landownership, state policy, and global economic pressures.

2nd Floor, 45 Pusa Road, Opp. Metro Pillar 128, Karol Bagh, New Delhi-110005
Ph: 08062961200, 08062961201 | Email: [email protected]
The result is a hybrid agrarian structure—where capitalist relations (like wage labor and commercial
cropping) exist alongside feudal practices (like patron-client ties, caste domination, and informal
bondage).

Bonded Labor, Rural Bondage, Migrant Workers

& Decline of Agrarian Economy in India
Persistence of Bonded Labor in India
Despite the legal abolition through the Bonded Labour System (Abolition) Act, 1976, bonded
labor persists in India’s informal economy, especially in rural and semi-rural areas. The continued
existence is not just a legal failure, but a symptom of deep-rooted socio-economic and caste-based
hierarchies.
According to André Béteille, caste-based occupational and land ownership structures in rural India
create enduring forms of dependence and subordination. This means that even without overt
coercion, structural inequality reproduces unfree labor.
Case Study: In the brick kiln industry of Odisha and Andhra Pradesh, tribal families take seasonal
loans and get trapped in long working cycles under oppressive conditions. Despite "advances"
being voluntary, the repayment terms effectively create bondage.
Sociological Insight: The persistence of bonded labor illustrates what Karl Polanyi called the
"embeddedness" of economy in social structures—debt and labor are not just market exchanges
but part of a social hierarchy maintained through coercion and dependency.
Rural Bondage as a Continuing Social Reality
Rural bondage has not vanished—it has merely morphed. Traditional debt-based bondage may
have declined, but unequal power relations based on caste, class, and land ownership still compel
rural labor to work under exploitative conditions.
Béteille emphasized that rural inequality is more than economic—it is legitimized by culture and
tradition. In many regions, Dalit and tribal laborers continue to serve dominant caste landlords
without formal contracts or bargaining power.
Case Study: In Tamil Nadu's Sivakasi town, Dalit families work in fireworks and matchstick
industries under informal bondage-like conditions, with little safety and no legal recourse.
From a Marxist lens, this reflects a semi-feudal mode of production, where feudal and capitalist
forms coexist—an idea extended by A.R. Desai in his analysis of Indian rural society.
Migrant Workers and the COVID-19 Pandemic
The COVID-19 pandemic starkly exposed the invisibility and vulnerability of India's migrant labor
force. These workers, mostly from rural areas of Bihar, UP, and Jharkhand, form the backbone of
India’s urban informal sector but lack any institutional protection.
Sociologist Jan Breman coined the term “footloose labour” to describe such workers—those who
are neither fully absorbed in the urban economy nor rooted in rural livelihoods. They are circular
migrants, permanently temporary.

2nd Floor, 45 Pusa Road, Opp. Metro Pillar 128, Karol Bagh, New Delhi-110005
Ph: 08062961200, 08062961201 | Email: [email protected]
Case Study: During the 2020 lockdown, millions of migrants were left stranded, walking hundreds
of kilometers back to their villages as cities shut down. Delhi and Mumbai saw chaotic scenes of
reverse migration, showcasing the absence of social security for informal workers.
This event confirmed Utsa Patnaik’s critique that economic reforms have increased
informalization and precarity, especially among rural-origin workers.
Decline of the Agrarian Economy and Its Social Impact
Agriculture’s declining share in GDP (now ~15%) contrasts with the fact that over 40% of India’s
population still depends on it. This reflects what Yogendra Yadav called an "agrarian crisis of
invisibility"—a sector central to people's lives but neglected in policymaking.
The decline has triggered:
• Widespread agrarian distress and farmer suicides.
• Mass male outmigration for non-farm work.
• Increased female responsibility in agriculture without proportional rights or recognition.
Case Study: In Vidarbha, Maharashtra, rising input costs, failed crops, and lack of institutional
credit have pushed thousands of small and marginal farmers into debt traps, often ending in
suicides.
According to Surinder S. Jodhka, this reflects the dismantling of the traditional agrarian order.
Caste-based landholding dominance is weakening, but without inclusive rural development,
marginal farmers and laborers remain stuck between a declining village economy and an
unwelcoming urban one.
This transition creates a new form of rurality—marked not by tradition but by exclusion from both
modernity and agrarian viability.
Conclusion- The issues of bonded labor, rural bondage, migrant precarity, and agrarian decline are
deeply interlinked. Together, they reflect the incomplete and uneven nature of India's rural
transformation.

Introduction: Sociology of Rural

Development
Rural development refers to the multidimensional process of improving the quality of life,
economic well-being, and social justice for people residing in rural areas. It goes beyond material
infrastructure to include transformation in social relations, political empowerment, and reduction
of inequalities related to caste, class, and gender. Sociologically, rural development aims at
restructuring power dynamics and ensuring inclusive participation.
In India, rural development has always been at the core of planning, considering that over two-
thirds of the population lives in villages. Yet, the rural landscape remains marked by poverty,
landlessness, social exclusion, and agrarian distress, making rural development a persistent
challenge.

2nd Floor, 45 Pusa Road, Opp. Metro Pillar 128, Karol Bagh, New Delhi-110005
Ph: 08062961200, 08062961201 | Email: [email protected]
Cooperative Movements in India
Origins and Objectives
The cooperative movement in India began during the British period with the Cooperative Credit
Societies Act of 1904. It was institutionalized post-independence to promote collective action
among small farmers, artisans, and rural laborers. Cooperatives were envisioned as grassroots
institutions for empowering the rural poor.
Role in Rural Development
• Economic Empowerment: Cooperatives enable small producers to pool resources for
better bargaining power, procurement of inputs, and collective marketing.
• Democratization of Economic Institutions: Cooperatives work on principles of mutual
benefit and democratic governance, encouraging participation.
• Social Capital Formation: They foster trust and solidarity, countering fragmentation in
caste- and kinship-based rural societies.
Case Study: AMUL Dairy Cooperative, Gujarat
AMUL revolutionized the dairy industry by organizing rural milk producers into cooperatives.
With a robust supply chain and direct market access, AMUL ensured better prices, gender-
inclusive employment, and community development.
Cooperatives and Poverty Alleviation
Cooperatives have played a significant role in alleviating poverty by facilitating access to credit,
markets, and skill development. Particularly in areas where formal banking is absent, cooperatives
provide essential financial services.
• Women’s SHGs: These micro-cooperative groups have enabled rural women to start
income-generating activities.
• Agro-based Cooperatives: In regions like Vidarbha (Maharashtra), sugar cooperatives have
reduced dependency on moneylenders and created employment.
• Cottage and Handloom Cooperatives: In states like Assam and West Bengal, handloom
cooperatives help preserve traditional skills while offering sustainable livelihoods.
Case Study: Kudumbashree Mission, Kerala
This poverty eradication initiative organizes women into neighborhood groups (SHGs), federated
into cooperatives. It integrates thrift, microcredit, and micro-enterprises, becoming a model for
inclusive rural development.

2nd Floor, 45 Pusa Road, Opp. Metro Pillar 128, Karol Bagh, New Delhi-110005
Ph: 08062961200, 08062961201 | Email: [email protected]
Challenges Facing the Cooperative Movement
Despite their potential, cooperatives in India face several hurdles:
• Political Interference: Often dominated by local elites, cooperatives are used for political
patronage rather than community welfare.
• Poor Governance: Lack of professional management, weak member participation, and
irregular audits limit their efficiency.
• Financial Constraints: Inadequate access to capital and over-reliance on government
subsidies hamper sustainability.
• Limited Reach: Many cooperatives are concentrated in certain states like Maharashtra and
Gujarat, leaving out poorer regions.
Sociological Insight (Conflict Perspective): Cooperatives can become tools for reinforcing rural
inequalities if captured by dominant caste or class groups.
Strengthening Cooperatives at the Grassroots
• Democratic Functioning: Ensure transparency, internal elections, and member training.
• Capacity Building: Provide managerial training and introduce digital tools for record-
keeping and decision-making.
• Policy Support: Link cooperatives to rural development schemes and ensure subsidized
loans with effective monitoring.
• Gender Sensitivity: Encourage women's participation in leadership roles within
cooperatives.
Example: Digital Dairy Cooperatives in Karnataka use mobile apps for milk collection and
payment tracking, enhancing efficiency and transparency.
Conclusion- Rural development in India is not merely about economic growth; it requires
addressing deep-rooted social inequalities. Cooperative movements, when inclusive and
participatory, can serve as engines of empowerment. MGNREGA and MSP have the potential to
transform rural livelihoods if implemented equitably.
Sociologically, development policies must move beyond a technocratic lens and engage with caste,
class, gender, and regional dynamics. Sustainable rural development will depend on local
participation, social justice, and the creation of accountable institutions from below.

2nd Floor, 45 Pusa Road, Opp. Metro Pillar 128, Karol Bagh, New Delhi-110005
Ph: 08062961200, 08062961201 | Email: [email protected]